
^'>M Captai-nl^.chaT-cL W. Heaie. MM 
Triei C-or tW Loss o/- tlie. ^HH 




Sa^. Jacnito . l^tfc 






Qass ^-1^ 



DEFENSE 



OF 

CAPT. RICHARD W. MEADE, 

TRIED FOR THE LOSS OF THE --«-^t«*^., 

UNITED STATES STEAMER SAN JACINTO, 

ON THE BAHAMA BANKS, JANUARY 1, 1865. 

READ BY HIS COUNSEL, 

JOHN W. ASHMEAD, 

On THE Eighth Day of February, 1866, 

BEFORE A 

CONVENED AT THE NAVY YARD, 

IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. 



-»-« ♦ » I 




NEW YORK: 

PRESS OF WYNKOOP & HALL EN BECK, 

113 Fulton Stkeet. 

1866. 



[1. \S' 



MEMBERS OF THE COURT. 



Captain WM. K. LATIMER, President. 
CHARLES BOARMAN, 
JOHN P. GILLIS, 
OLIVER S. GLISSON, 
COJIMANDER T. D. SHAW, 

JOHN C. CARTER, 
EDWARD R. THOMSON. 



O V 



^ 



DEFENSE. 



Mr. President and Gentlemen of tee Court: 

An accusation has been preferred against me by the 
Honorable the Secretary of the Navy, which tliis Court- 
Martial is convened to try. It charges, that I violated 
the seventh section of the seventh article of the rules 
for the better government of the Navy of the United 
States, and the manner of the violation is briefly stated 
in two specihcations on the record, but which, in sub- 
stance, amount to but one. It is, that when I was in 
command of the United States Steamship San Jacinto, I 
so negligently, culpably, and inattentively gave my 
order for the navigation of the ship, that she was suf- 
fered, by reason thereof, to run upon a rock, and that I 
did not give to the execution of those orders that per- 
sonal attention and supervision which it was my duty 
to have done. To these charges, I have pleaded Not 
Guilty, have produced my testimony, and have listened 
to all that the accusing witnesses have said against me. 
These witnesses have been examined, re-examined, and 
cross-examined, and this court has ascertained the lull 
extent of the knowledge possessed by each. Upon this 
body of evidence I build my defense. I am conscious 
of having done no wrong, and believe that I must come 
out of this ordeal of atrial, unscathed by anything that 
has been said or done. Instead of its having been 
proved by the government, that I was a careless and 
inattentive officer in the discharge of my duty, I have 



been shown to have been a vigilant one, always super- 
vising personally the orders I issued, and careful to see 
that they were never evaded or disregarded. I have a 
deep stake in the result of this trial, as much as I well 
can have in anything that does not affect my life. It 
involves my regard for my .reputation, and for my hon- 
orable character among my associate officers, as an 
efficient, vigilant, and competent captain in the Navy 
of the United States ; and, if you are about to visit me 
with a judgment that shall strip me of all these things, 
(which I so dearly cherish), I conjure you to state, on 
the record which condemns me, strong and clear grounds 
for your proceeding. Under any circumstances, I trust, 
that no high-priest will be permitted by this court to 
lay his hands upon my head — make me the scapegoat — 
confess over me the iniquities of the men of the 
Navy, and, putting their transgressions upon me, send 
me away to bear them to the wilderness. 

The loss of the San Jacinto was of small account to 
the nation, so flir as her pecuniary value is concerned ; 
but, it was a great calamity to me; for , it gave both 
occasion and opportunity for charges to be made, that 
I was careless and negligent in the performance of my 
duties when in command of a ship. I have great con- 
fidence in stating, that I will be able to show, to the 
satisfaction of this court, I trust, that the charge and 
specifications preferred against me are untrue, and that 
the loss of the ship San Jacinto is attributable solely to 
the ignorance and culpable neglect of Acting Ensign E. 
B. Pratt, in disobeying the orders given him, directing 
the course the vessel was to run, he being the officer of 
the deck, and having the first vt^atch, from 8 o'clock 
to 12 o'clock, P. M., on the night of the 31st of 
December, fS64. Had the order to steer the ship south 



by west, in the manner, and for the time, directed by 
me, been carried out, according to its letter, the ship 
never would have been lost, and the present inquiry in 
reference to it, never would have been necessary. 

Before I proceed to state the facts that have been 
given in evidence — comment on their bearing and effect, 
and show how they demonstrate that I am free from all 
blame, I will state some points, which naturally present 
themselves for consideration and discussion. 

First. — Who is responsible for the safe navigation of 
the ship ■? This is a question which necessarily arises 
here, and which it is important you should consider, 
and, if possible, decide. The Court of Inquir} had it 
directly presented for decision, but it failed to deter- 
mine the point or express any decided judgment what- 
ever on the subject. It suggested, that the Department 
should settle it, by authority, to prevent further embar- 
rassment in future cases. It represented that I was oi 
opinion, that the responsibility rested on the navigating 
officer, whoever he might be, while others supposed, 
that it was upon the captain, and, some insisted, that the 
senior officer on board the ship, (the admiral, for instance) 
was to be held responsible, should it be wrecked by 
improper navigation. The question, therefore, seems 
to be an open one, which it is necessary for you to con- 
sider. To hold, that the captain of a ship is justly 
responsible for her loss, when caused by the disobedience 
of proper orders given to the officer of the deck, is a 
position, it will be difficult to maintain. Each officer is 
rightly held accountable for the proper performance of 
his own duties, in his own appropriate sphere, but 
cannot be for anything outside of them, and, to visit 



6 

the delinquencies and shortcomings of another upon 
him, would be considered, by every one, an act of 
injustice and oppression. For this court, therefore, to 
establish such a principle, would be, in eftect, for 
its members to stultify themselves, which no rational 
man is expected to do. Indeed, to hold, that the captaiu 
is responsible for the loss of his ship, where it has been 
occasioned by either a willful or negligent disregard of 
his orders to the officer, and then punish the captain for 
the loss, would be neither more nor less than sayinir, 
that a commander of a public vessel shall not rely upon 
the men and means furnished him to navigate his vessel, 
but, that he must, in addition, perpetually keep the deck 
in person, and watch the execution of his orders from 
hour to hour. He must be engineer, helmsman, sailinsr- 
^aster, and officer of the deck, and all these at all hours ; 
otherwise, he is liable to be arraigned and convicted of 
inattention and negligence. The officer, who ought, in 
strictness, to be responsible for the safe navigation of 
the ship, is the sailing-master ; for, it is his business to 
keep the ship's place, and report to the captain, three 
times a day, the bearings and distances of the port to 
which she is bound, or the nearest land which it is desired 
to make ; it being the habit of some commanders, as the 
members of this court know, to leave the navigation of 
the vessel wholly to the judgment of their sailing-mas- 
ters. To assert, that a captain of a vessel is responsible, 
under all circumstances, for her safe navigation, and to 
have the doctrine authoritatively settled by the authority 
of the Department, or even asserted to be true, by the 
finding of a single Court-Martial, and acted upon, would 
leave thereafter no case open to inquiry, but the com- 
mander of the vessel, however innocent he might be of 
guilt, would be either suspended or dismissed from the 



Navy. It woolrl be, in effect, as if a ham an govern- 
ment were to orflain that all killing should be imarfler, 
and that no inquiry sboald be made to ascertain whether 
the killing was in self^Jefenae, by accident, or whether 
the party perpetrating the deed was sane or otherwise. 
Or, to make the resemblance still more complete, it 
would be, as if ia the other arm of the poblic service, 
a general commander, with dirision commanders ander 
him, should be held responsible for the errors and dis- 
obedience to orders committed by them, and he be pun- 
ished in their stead. This doctrine could be held, wit:h 
quite as much propriety in the Nary, as in the Army ; 
for, in the one case it would be the loss of the ship, 
and in the other the loss of the battle. 

It is clear, that on the obedience or disobedience of a 
subordinate officer in the field, the result of the action 
may depend, and to permit the superior officer to be 
punished for the fault of the subordinate, would be sub- 
versive of all justice, and, in its consequences, ruinous 
to the service. I trust, therefore, that this Court-Mar- 
tial will not be the first to hold, that the captain of a 
ship is, under all circumstances, responsible for the loss, 
and that, too, in a case where he gave proper orders for 
the navigation of the vessel, and where the loss was 
consequent upon their being disobeyed. Such a doc- 
trine, I trust, will not be announced, for the first time, 
in my case, especially as it is shown by the record, that 
the Navy Department was asked by the Court of In- 
quiry to decide the question of responsibility more than 
eleven months ago, and has, up to this hpur, neglected 
to do so. The prestimption from the delay is, that the 
Department concluded to leave the law as it now stands, 
unchanged, suffering each case, as it may arise, to be 
decided upon its own fects, and subjecting the party, 



who should be ascertained, by investigation, to be delin- 
quent, to a just responsibility for his wrong acts. In 
other words, the Department did not mean to make an 
arbitrary rule upon the subject, nor, did it design to 
punish one man for another man's transgressions ; but 
it intended to apply punishment only to the guilty. 
Hence, it is submitted to this court, that it is not true 
that the captain is responsible for the safe navigation 
of the ship, but the responsibility, as a general rule, 
properly belongs to the sailing-master. Each case, 
nevertheless, is dt-pendent upon its own peculiar 
circumstances, and the party ascertained to be 
in fault, is the one upon whom the punishment should 
fall. 

Second. — It has been suggested that I exhibited a 
want of ordinary prudence, in giving my orders for 
(he navigation of the ship on the night of the 3 1st of 
December, 1S64, and that the course and distance I 
directed to be run, from S o'clock to 12 o'clock, 
P.M., put her in closer proximity to the shore than was 
proper, considering that the currents were uncertain, 
and the land but a few feet elevated above the level of 
the sea. That tlie order was not rasli, but might be 
prudently given, is sworn to by Mr. Frazier, a seaman, 
probably, of all living men, the most thoroughly versed 
in the navigation of that sea, having been employed by 
the New York underwriters not only to visit, but almost 
to live in the locality, in order to ascertain, if possible, 
how to avoid the losses so constantly recurring there, 
and for which they had so often been held responsible^ 
A little consideration will show, that the suggestion, 
that I ordered the ship closer to shore than I ought 
to have done, is without the slightest foundation in 



9 

point of fact, and it must be considered with 
reference to the objects that directed the order, 
ansl the purposes which it was intended to ac- 
comphsh by it. I received my sailing orders 
from Admiral Stribling, dated December 23, 1864. 
They directed me to proceed, with the San Jacinto, to 
cruise, in the vicinity of Nassau and the Bahama Banks^ 
and to be governed by the General Instructions relating 
to the capture of vessels attempting to run the block- 
ade of any of the ports, then in possession of the 
rebels. In obedience to these orders, I sailed from 
Key West on the 27th of December, 1804. Now, it 
must be recollected, that these sailing orders did not 
direct me to proceed to any specified port, but I was 
ordered to cruise, for a special purpose, in the neigh- 
borhood of the Bahama Banks, and capture vessels 
that might attempt to run the blockade. I had, there- 
fore, as stated by Sailing Master Wright in his evi- 
dence, a particular object in running for that part of 
the coast on which the San Jacinto was lost. I had, 
on the 31st of December, 1864, discovered and chased 
three blockade-runners through Whale Key Passage, 
and my desire was to be as near that passage by day- 
light on the morning of the 1st of January, lSb5, as 
was prudent. A vessel was then lying in the passage, 
which had been driven there by me, and my object 
was, that if she attempted to come out in the morning, 
I might intercept her, and others, that were supposed 
to be near her, and chase them off, rather than towards 
the shore. This evidence of Sailing Master Wright, 
was given in reply to a question propounded by this 
court, and it states my true reasons. Even Acting 
Ensign Pratt, respecting whose testimony I shall have 
much to say hereafter, states, that I said something to 



10 

him about wanting to meet blockade-runners at day- 
light on the morning of the 1st of January, 1865, and 
ordered him to keep a sharp lookout for them. I need 
not assure the court, that it was my purpose, in all 
sincerity, to carry out, with strictness, the orders of 
the Admiral, and it was, in obedience to their spirit, 
that I gave the orders which are called in question. 
Had my ship been bound upon a voyage to a designated 
port, I would have stood upon a course directly for 
the place ; but, as the purpose of my cruise made it 
necessary for success, that I should keep as near shore 
as prudent, I gave the necessary orders to accomplish 
that result. Tliat they were prudent orders, I then 
believed, and I now believe, and had they been carried 
out in the spirit in which they were given, the ship 
would not have been lost. Sailing iraster Wright has 
stated, after looking at and examining the chart, in the 
presence of this court, that, if the ship had been run 
upon a course south by west, for twenty miles, she 
would have been twelve miles from the nearest land, 
and eleven miles from the nearest point of danger. 
My desire was to be distant from the land some eight 
or nine miles, on the morning of the 1st of January, 
and the courses and distance I directed to be run from 
8 to 12, P. M., on the evening of the 31st of December, 
would have accomplished that result. 

If this statement be true, respecting which there can 
be no question, it will hardly be pretended that it was 
not safe or prudent in me to approach within eleven 
miles of the nearest point of danger. Mr. Frazier, the 
experienced navigator already alluded to, has also testi- 
fied, that if he had three chronometers on board his 
ship, (the number which were on board the San Jacinto 
at the time of her loss), and if he were satisfied of 



11 

their accuracy, and he had reliable observations in the 
forenoon and afternoon of the day, he would not hesi- 
tate to run within five miles of the land with a good 
lookout. A discrimination, of course, is to be made 
between a steamer and a sailing-vessel, for a steamer 
can always keep her course by aid of her steam, while 
a sailing-vessel would be dependent for safety upon 
having a commanding breeze. Had the order been to 
run twenty-five miles instead of but tvven^-y miles, the 
vessel still would have been subjected to no peril ; for 
Sailing Master Wright swore, in answer to a question 
put to him, that if the vessel, instead of running twenty 
miles on the course south by west, had run twenty-five 
miles, she would still have been entirely safe. I, there- 
fore, assert, it is clear that I exhibited no want of ordi- 
nary prudence when I gave my orders for the naviga- 
tion of the ship on the night of December 31, 1S64, 
and that I in nowise endangered her safety by putting 
her in too close proximity with the shore, wiien the 
purposes for which I was cruising are considered and 
understood. I will add here, in addition, that so satis- 
fied is Sailing Master Wright with the orders that were 
given for the navigation of the San Jacinto on the 
night of December 31, that in reply to the following 
question put by this court, viz. : " With your knowl- 
edge of the dangerous navigation in the vicinity of 
where the ship was wrecked, would you, as a naviga- 
tor, being in commfind of a ship of the class of the San 
Jacinto, in the same position where that ship was at 
8 o'clock, P. M., of December 31, 1S64, adopt the 
same course?" — he responded, with confidence, as fol- 
lows : " I should. Were the course given at 8 o'clock 
adhered to, and knowing the coast perfectly clean, with 
no dangers beyond the edge of the reef, I should feel 



12 

myself safe within half a mile of it, provided it could 
be seen, or I knew its position." With these remarks, 
I proceed to the consideration of my next point. 



Third. — Another preliminary matter, in respect to 
which I desire to make a few remarks, has reference to 
the utter want of proper precautions taken for the safety 
of the San Jacinto, when I was ordered to cruise with 
her in the vicinity of Nassau and the Bahama Banks. 
I was assigned to her command on the 17th of October, 
1864. She was rated a second-class ship, with a 
complement of about two hundred and eighty officers 
and men. She was then lying in Portsmouth, New 
Hampshire, undergoing repairs, and preparing for sea. 
•While under the command of Commodore Wilkes, she 
had been furnished by him with an excellent set ot 
charts, which, on her arrival at Portsmouth, were depos- 
ited in the Navigation Office. When orders were given 
to take her stores on board, Sailing-Master Wright made 
apulication for these charts, but was told the ship could 
only Iiave what was allowed any other second-class 
vessel of the East Gulf Blockading Squadron. Con- 
sequently, she was furnished with nothiifg but a set of 
Bache's Coast Survey Charts, of which. Sheet No. 4, 
representing, upon a small scale, the coast from Mos- 
quito Inlet to Key West, together with the adjacent 
sea, was the only one she had of that region, being even 
denied the old Blunt working chart, by which the San 
Jacinto had been navigated by her former captains. 
The place where the San Jacinto was to cruise, is 
described in Blunt's Coast Pilot, as "one of the most 
dangerous and fatal corners on the Bahamas, and likely 
to pick up all vessels bound southwest, when they 



13 

happen to fall to the westward of the reckoning." The 
truth of this is amply attested by the wreck, marked on 
the chart, of the French frigate La Allid ; of the British 
seventy-four Lion, the former northwest, and the latter 
southeast of the rocks ou which the San Jacinto ran 
neither of them fifteen miles from the scene of the dis- 
aster in question ; and of the United States vessels Adi- 
rondac and Courier, all upon the same i-eef, the last not 
exceeding twenty-five miles distant from the place where 
the San Jacinto was wrecked, and under the direction 
of this same Mr. Pratt, as navigating officer, a fact, of 
course, unknown to me at the time. A writer of great 
respectability, upon navigation, after enumerating at 
considerable len2:th the aids with which a navigator 
must be supplied, in order to pursue his dangerous call- 
ing with safety, says : " Finally, he must be provided 
with the general and local charts applicable to his con- 
templated voyage. Thus furnished, the mariner may 
set sail with confidence ; may do so with no aids but the 
compass, log, quadrant, a single chart and book of navi- 
gation, and arrive in safety. But, it is less our business 
to show with how little care a ship may be navigated, 
than to show how she may be carried from port to port 
with the greatest possible certainty." I have alluded to 
this want of proper charts on board the ship, simply to 
show,how inadequately the vessel was equipped for proper 
navigation. I will add, let the guilt of sending this ship 
to cruise in the most dangerous sea on our coast, with 
one small chart, lie at the door of those to whom it is 
due. I will demonstrate, hereafter, when I approach 
the consideration of the facts of my case, that ii was to 
avoid these well-known dangers, and yet carry out the 
purposes of the cruise, that my orders were so specially 
given to Acting Ensign Pratt, as to the course and dis- 



14 

tance the ship was to run on the night of the 31st of 
December, 18G4. 

Fourth. — The Court of Inquiry stated, that it was 
impossible for it to decide positively, in regard to the 
conflicting testimony, when both parties were so seri- 
ously interested. This is the language used by the 
court. I had testified before it, and Acting Ensign 
Pratt had also given his evidence. The parties intended 
to be described as seriously interested were, no doubt, 
Acting Ensign Pratt and myself. Here, where it is a 
trial, and not simply an inquiry, my lips are sealed, and 
no statement or explanation that I might be able or 
willing to offer, can be heard from me under oath. 
What Pract chooses to say, is here called testimony, 
while what I may conscientiously utter, is esteemed as 
but dust in the balance, and yet, he is directly swearing 
for himself, and is personally most deeply interested in 
the result of the trial. If by disobeying the order for 
the navigation of the ship, he was instrumental in caus- 
ing her loss, he was aware that he violated a military 
order, for which no excuse is allowable, except inevita- 
ble accident or overruling power. Acting Ensign Pratt 
was conscious of all this, and in order to escape the 
consequences, he now pretends, that the orders he 
received from me, left it discretionary with him, 
to sail the ship any course he chose between south 
and southwest, when he must have known, that 
by sailing west of the course, he would certainly run 
upon the reef, if he recollected what had happened to 
him, in that same, place so very recently. For this pal- 
pable violation of the orders he received, he could not 
even plead the poor excuse of ignorance of the dangers 
which beset that locality, since, as has been already 



15 

stated, the United States ship Courier had been lost 
there, a few months before, under him, as navigating 
officer. This court must, therefore, on this trial, 
decide the question which the Court of Inquiry seemed 
to avoid, and determine which of the witnesses who have 
appeared before the court are entitled to credit, and 
this duty there is no possible means of avoiding 
with fidelity to the oaths you have taken. Hence, I 
ask, that when you are considering the credit which 
each of the witnesses is entitled to receive at your 
hands, you will keep in remembrance, that Acting 
Ensign Pratt is an interested witness in the proceedings, 
and that he is swearing himself fiom blame, anxious, if 
possible, to transfer his guilt to the shoulders of 
another. 

Fifth. — I propose, in this connection, to express some 
views upon the subject of evidence, and state a general 
rule, thoroughly settled to be law, and inflexibly 
adhered to in all courts. This rule is an important one, 
and is especially applicable to the testimony introduced 
by the prosecution. I will siate the rule presently, so 
soon as I shall have grouped together some facts which 
will make it, and its application, clearly intelligible to 
you. In this case, you will necessarily observe, that 
there is a manifest conflict of testimony on a most vital 
and material point, viz. ; As to the course the San 
Jacinto was directed to be sailed after 8 o'clock, P.M., 
on the night of the 31st of December, 1SG4. It is 
not a conflict between the witnesses produced for the 
defense ; for, there is entire concord and agreement 
between them ; but, it is a conflict between the witnesses 
produced for the prosecution. These witnesses are at 
variance with each other, and the testimony of one 



16 

of them cuts up the evidence of the other by the roots, 
as effectually as where the axe is laid to the root of the 
tree. The Judge Advocate himself surely cannot say 
of his own witnesses, "Behold how good and pleasant 
it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" This 
observation has marked significance when applied to 
the evidence given by Acting Ensign Pratt and Sailing 
Master Wright, both of whom were sworn for the 
prosecution. The statement of Sailing Master Wright 
is diametrically opposed to that made by Acting Ensign 
Pratt, and they are as opposite in their character as day 
is from night. Human intellect is not adequate enough 
to harmonize this evidence, and it is obvious, that both 
of them cannot speak the truth. One or the other of 
them, to use the mildest form of language, must have 
testified to what is untrue, and there is no possible 
method by which this conclusion can be avoided. It is 
your business to determine which of them you will 
believe. I will show you hereafter, in its appropriate 
place, as logically and as conclusively as it is possible 
for human argument to establish anything, that Sailing 
Master Wright is confirmed, in all his material state- 
ments, by every witness who has spoken in the cause, 
and that Acting Ensign Pratt is contradicted by them 
all, and is not sustained, in any material particular, by 
any one of them. Besides, he contradicts himself, and 
has made contradictory or different statements, on two 
occasions, to two intelligent witnesses, whose evidence 
is on your record. 

Our Divine Master once said to his disciples : " If ye 
have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall say to 
this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it 
shall remove;" but I now say to you, that if you can 
credit the evidence of Acting Ensign Pratt, with all the 



17 

drawbacks that necessarily attach to it, and which 
statement is also against all the probabilities of truth, 
you will exercise a measure of faith much beyond what 
is said to be necessary to remove the mountain. Prob- 
abilities are always to be regarded by courts. Lord 
Mansfield, in the celebrated Douu;lass case, in o:ivini]rhis 
judgment, said : " It is an undoubted truth that judges, 
in forming their opinion of events, and in deciding upon 
the truth or falsehood of controverted facts, must be 
guided by the rules o{ prohahHity ; and, as mathematical 
or absolute certainty is seldom to be attained in human 
affairs, reason and public utility require that judges, and 
all mankind, in forming tiieir opinion of the truth of 
facts, should be regulated by the superior numbers of 
the probabilities on the one side or the other.'''' Probabilities, 
therefore, more or less strong, are the only measure of 
certainty that is attainable by the testimony of wit- 
nesses, and the presumption is, that men act according 
to svhat is most probable. The law always presumes 
this, and considers men to be in their most natural state 
or condition ; that is, they are always presumed to be 
sane, not insane; innocent, not guilty; legitimate, not 
illegitimate, and the like. Before you can convict me 
of a violation of the seventh section of the seventh 
article of the rules for the belter government of the 
Navy, you are required to credit Acting Ensign Pratt, 
whose testimony is against all human probability, and 
believe it to be probable, that I did, v^^hen in command 
of the San Jacinto, and when at a point within thirty 
miles of " the most dangerous and fiital corner of the 
Bahamas," issue a sailing order, for a cloudy night, 
which allowed him (the officer who was to execute it) 
the power to run the ship for five consecutive hours 

directly toward the reef, rather than believe Sailing 
2 



18 

Master Wriglit, who states, that the course that was 
given to tlie officer of the deck, only permitted the 
approach toward the reef to be made by d course 
nearly parallel witli it, and at such a rate of speed, and 
for such time, as would bring her only within nine or 
ten miles of the point of danger. To credit Acting 
Ensign Pratt, you are required to believe that it is prob- 
able, that a captain of the United States Navy, in charge 
of a public ship, gave an order which no navigator ever 
gave before, which would infallibly lead to the loss of 
the ship, rather than believe, that he gave an order so 
guarded as to render her safety almost a certainty. 

Having stated the facts necessary to introduce and 
make intelligible the rule of evidence to which I alluded 
in my opening observations upon this point, I will now 
proceed to state and explain it. It is this : No party 
who introduces a witness to a court, and swears him in 
a cause, has any right afterward, to discredit that wit- 
ness, or even insinuate in argument, that he is not an 
honest witness, or that he is unworthy of belief. He 
is estopped from making any such alh^gation. The 
mere fact, that he pL'iced the witness on the stand, is a 
public affirmation that the witness is credible and 
worthy of belief. There is both honesty and philosophy 
in this legal rule ; for , otherwise a party who placed a 
witness on the stand, could ask the court or jury to 
believe that he was credible and honest only when he 
swore for him ; but, if his testimony happened to be 
against him, then he could turn round and treat the 
witness as unworthy of belief Hence, the law has 
established it as an axiom that no party shall ever be 
permitted to discredit his own witnesses. Permit me to 
ask, Whose witness is Sailing Master Wright, and who 



19 

produced him to testify in this court? I answer, he 
was put upon the stand by the learned Judge-Advocate, 
and his placing him there, is a voucher, given to you, 
that he is an honorable, upright and credible witness, 
and fully worthy of your confidence. He cannot, with 
any conformity to established principle, treat him as 
otherwise. He may, I concede, legitimately argue, that 
Sailing Master Wright is mistaken in the testimony he 
has given, but he cannot impeach his integrity as a 
man or a witness, or question his conscientious desire 
to state the truth. If the obligation of an oath adds 
force and solemnity to human testimony, this witness 
should be credited in preference to all others ; for, he 
has been twice sworn in this case, that the evidence he 
would give would be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth. I, therefore, leave this pointy 
simply remarking, that I have established the fact that 
Sailing Master Wright is a credible witness, whose 
honesty of purpose, cannot be impeached or gainsaid 
by the prosecution. 

Sixth. — In this point, in very few words, I design to 
refer to the log-book of the ship, simply for the purpose 
of stating, that in the defense I am submitting, I shall 
make no allusion to it. The witnesses on both sides 
have sworn, that the entries made on the 31sfc of 
December, 1864, are not correct, and they have speci- 
fied instances in which it is erroneous. These inaccu- 
racies have respect to the courses sailed by the ship, as 
well as to the state of the wind, and some of them are 
not signed by the parties who ought to have done so. 
Acting Ensign Pratt, for instance, neglected to sign 
the log for that day, although frequently requested to 
do so. This lo2:-bojk would not be received as evidence 



20 



in any court, proceeding either according to the course of 
the common or civil law. The humblest Justice of the 
Peace, whose knowledge would extend but little beyond 
" crowner's-quest law," if told that it was conceded on 
both sides not to be accurate, would refuse to permit 
it to be read in evidence. The legal maxim, which 
applies to witnesses, he would consider applicable to 
it. Falsns in imo,falsns m om7n/jiis : False in one thing, 
false in all. To this court, too, the book was apparently 
not satisfactory ; for, some of the entries which were 
signed were received in evidence — those not signed 
were rejected, and parol evidence was heard to, state 
wherein consisted the defects. For these reasons, I 
shall make no reference whatever to this log-book, nor 
to its contents, but I will construct my defense upon 
the sworn evidence given by the witnesses in the case. 

SevI':nth. — I desire, in this my last preliminary point, 
to refer to the position in which my case stands before 
this court, as contrasted with what its condition v^as 
when before the Conrt-Martial that assembled in Brook- 
lyn in May last. It is here, under very different cir~ 
cumstances, with much more favorable facilities for the 
ascertainment of truth, the testimony being materially 
different, and very muoh enlarged by the evidence of 
additional witnesses. The defense has introduced here, 
the statements of five persons not heard before the other 
court, who speak to vital and material matters, within 
their own personal knowledge. Their names are, 
William Richardson, Acting Master and Pilot ; Daniel 
Dunsmore, Gunner; Henry F. Stocker, Sailmaker ; 
Charles F. Ottinger, ordinary seaman, and Eugene A. 
Smalley, First Lieutenant of Marines. I need not say 
that I rely fur acquittal exclusively upon the merits of 



21 

the case; for, the law — the testimony — and the cloud of 
witnesses who have spoken in if, absolve me from the 
charge and specifications vvhich have been brought 
against me, and which you are here convened to try. 
In your investigations you are limited by no bound- 
eries but those of truth and fact ; for, a trial is nothing 
more than an inquiry into the truth of facts connected 
with or growing out of human conduct. All that I 
expect or desire at your hands, is that you will not go 
beyond the limits of the charge and specifications which 
have been transmitted for trial here ; or, that you will 
not obtrude yourselves outside of your proper jurisdic- 
tion, but that you will confine your inquiries to the 
limit of the points submitted to you. You will ascer- 
tain, whether I did, on or about the 1st of January, 
1865, negligently and inattentively give my orders for 
the navigation of the ship, then cruising in the neigh- 
borhood of Elbow Cay, and did unlawfully suffer her 
to be run upon a rock ; and whether I did, through 
culpable inefficiency, fail to make my orders for the 
navigation of the ship, intelligible to those to whom 
they were given, and whether I failed to give to the 
supervision of the said order, that personal attention 
which it was my duty to have done. This, and this 
alone, is a legitimate and proper inquiry here. Still, 
as the evidence which has been received, has embraced 
an inquiry into the propriety of the order which I gave 
on the night of the 31st of December, to Acting 
Ensign Pratt, to steer the ship south by west for 
twenty miles, and whether that course was a right or 
a wrong one, I shall consider all these topics in my 
remarks hereafter to be made. This, however, furnishes 
no just reason for an extension of the inquiry beyond 
what ought to be its just limits. It is, neverthe- 



22 

less true, as said by Lord Erskirie, in his splendid 
defense of Lord George Gordon, " that there is little 
difference whether a man dies by the sabre, without the 
forms of trial, or by the pompous ceremonies of justice, 
if the crime can be made, at pleasure, by the State, to 
fit the facts that are to be tried." With these remarks, 
I shall now proceed to state the facts, and discuss their 
whole bearing and extent. 

The San Jacinto sailed from Key West, under my 
command, on the 27th of December, 1864, and at noon, 
on the 3 1st, was forty miles from Elbow Cay, Little 
Bahama Banks. She was heading southwest by south, 
chasing a steamer whose smoke was seen from the mast- 
head, but which was soon lost sight of when the course of 
the ship was changed to the northward and westward. 
The wind was at this time variable from the westward, 
and the ship on the starboard tack, with all fore and 
aft sails set. At eight o'clock, P. M., Sailing Master 
Wright calculated the position of the ship, and pricked 
it out on the chart, and brought the reckoning to me, 
when I expressed a wish to be as near shore by morning 
as prudent, so as to be in shore of blockade-runners and 
chase them off the land. He suggested to me, that the 
ship could stand, with entire safety, on a course south by 
west, for a distance of twenty miles, and, if she were 
kept upon that course Elbow Cay light would be seen, 
which would avoid all danger ; and after running a 
distance of twenty miles the ship should tack with 
her head to. the northward and westward, the engines to 
be slowed down to four miles an hour. In making his 
calculation, the navigating officer carefully took the 
currents into consideration, having found by his personal 
observation, that they were controlled by the winds. 



23 

Westerly winds were then prevailing, which, in his 
judgment, neutralized the current, and he allowed a 
half point for them in order to be sure. I examined 
the chart with the sailing-master, approved his sugges- 
tions, and directed him to give the orders to this effect 
to the officer of the deck. Sailing Master Wright 
says it w^is his habit to carry the order from me to the 
officer of the deck, see it executed, and then report to 
me, and that I would immediately afterwards verify its 
execution myself. There wns but one chart on board 
the ship, which was No. 4 of the series of coral charts, 
prepared by Prof. Bache, which was the smallest of the 
scale. At eight o'clock, P.M., the shij^ wasin latitude 
21° 8' N., and longitude 76° 4S' W., and distant from 
the nearest point of danger, twenty-nine and a half 
miles, and from Elbow Cay, the point for which he was 
steering, thirty-six miles. In ascertaining the posi- 
tion of the ship, Sailing Master Wright took especial pains 
to be sure that his calculations were right, and he care- 
fully took observations when it was possible, never 
suffering an opportunity to pass unimproved. He 
made them for longitude on the morning of the 31st of 
December, between eight and nine o'clock, and 
for latitude at noon, the same day, but, it was 
not possible, on account of the cloudy weather, to 
obtain one in the afternoon or evening. Trials 
were made ; for, he went on deck with liis instru- 
ments between three and four o'clock in the after- 
noon, and tarried for some time, hoping to obtain a 
choice sight, but could not succeed. He carefully 
looked to see whether any star would come on the 
meridian, the altitude of which he could get, but found 
that none would before two o'clock in the morning. 
Lieutenant Smallev, who was examined before this 



24 

court, states that he was in the habit of marking time 
for the navigating officer when he took sights by chro- 
nometer. The weather was such, on the afternoon and 
evening of the 31st of December, that altitudes could 
not be taken after three o'clock. He, (Smalley,) waited 
from about half-past three to four o'clock at the chro- 
nometer, in order to take the sight if the nuister had 
been able to get it. 

The above narrative, I submit, is proved by the 
witnesses who have testified in the case. It brins-s the 
ship, and all matters that transpired upon her, down to 
eiglit o'clock of the evening of the 31st of December, 
1S64. Every word of what has been stated therein, has 
been sworn to be true, by intelligent and credible 
witnesses, and not one of them has either whispered or 
suggested anything to the contrary. What these 
witnesses have stated, makes the evidence in the case, and 
upon it alone, the members of this dignified court are 
sworn to decide it. Ic is a high privilege to me, to be 
able to commit truth to the custody of such careful 
guardians. 

At this point, I desire to make some comments on 
the testimony to which I have already referred, and 
which are closely connected with the charges here made 
against me. Every witness that has been examined, has 
testified to my constant care, and to the great particu- 
larity with which I gave my orders. The Chief Engi- 
neer, George S. Bright, said, that I was very particular 
in regard to his department, in giving orders as regarded 
the speed of the ship, and that he noticed that my care 
and vigilance extended to every department of it, -and 
was unremitting during, the time he was attached to 



25 



the vessel. The testimony given as to my vigilance, is 
confirmed by Lieutenant-Commander J. N. Qnacken- 
bush, Eugene A.Smalley, First Lieutenant of Marines ; 
John Thomas Morris, the Orderly ; and Charles F. 
Ottinger, ordinary seaman. William Richardson, Act- 
ing Master and Pilot, says, that I was particular in 
respect to the navigation of the ship, and in my injunc- 
tions to keep a gooiJ lookout ; that I would watch the 
quartermasters and the steering of the ship ; and he 
frequently knew me to pass the greater part of the night 
on a lounge in the room where the chart was kept, 
without my going to bed. Henry T. Stocker, Sail- 
maker, speaking of mv exactitude and care in oivinu- 
ray orders, says that he frequently noticed me when I 
came out of the cabin to the binnacle, and heard me 
caution the quartermaster to be particular in keeping 
his course. He added, that I was very careful and par- 
ticular in my orders for the navigation of the ship. 
James E. Watts, Third Assistant Engineer, testifies, 
that he never saw a person more devoted to the interests 
of the Government than I was during the time I had 
command of the ship ; that my care and vigilance was 
unremitting, and, to use his own language, he consid- 
ered it " eminently so." Byron Triplar, Mate, states, 
that I was particular, and took the greatest care, and 
that he has seen me at all hours of the nijjht examininar 
the compass. Sailingmaster Wright swears, that my 
care and vigilance was greater than that of any com- 
mander with whom he had ever sailed. George Ash- 
bury, who was acting master, swears to my constant 
habit of looking at the compasses when on deck. Even 
Acting Ensign Pratt, on the last Court-Martial, in 
answer to a question put by the court, condescended to 
swear, that he had known me to notice the compass. 



26 

and that he knew one particular time I was very par- 
ticular about the compasses, trying to fix them so that 
they would act together, a fact, which his improving 
memr.r}^ did not enable him to remember on the present 
occasion. On this trial, he was interrogated respecting 
my vigilance and care as a commander of a ship, to 
which he replied, that he did not know that he was a 
judge. He then volunteered the remark, nowise respons- 
ive to the question asked him, that he did not remem- 
ber that General Quarters were ever had on board the 
ship while he was attached to her ; a statement palpably 
false, and contradicted by every witness who testified after 
him. When liis prevarication ceased, he did reply, at last, 
that I was attentive to my duties. When he stated 
that he was not a judge, it was, most probably true ; 
for, the sequel showed, that he was ignorant of almost 
everything connected with a ship, and the duties of its 
officers. He seems to have been conscious of this himself; 
for, Sailmaker Henry T. Stocker swears, that he said to 
him, after the catastrophe, " that he was better fitted 
for a farmer than a sailor." In regard to my efforts to 
save the ship after she had struck the reef — the lives 
of the crew and officers, and the property that was on 
board, belonging to the Government, the testimony is 
unanimous and concurrent in declaring that I did every- 
thing it was possible to do. The Court of Inquiry, in 
my case, declared that the measures adopted by me, in 
endeavoring to effect these objects, were altogether 
judicious. What I did, showed not merely the proper 
knowledge on my part, but, it manifested the exercise 
of care and vigilance after the disaster. I shall not here, 
elaborate my statement, as to what 1 did after the ship 
was wrecked, because the Judge Advocate, in h's argu- 
ment upon the record, against the reception of the find- 



27 



iug or report of the Court of Inquiry in evidence, has 
declared, that what I did after the ship struck tlie reef, 
to save the lives of the crew, and the property of the 
Government, cannot be inquired into here ; for, in 
respect to those matters, there was no charge made 
against me. So, on the evening of the 31st of Decem- 
ber, 1SG4, when it became necessary to change the 
course which the San Jacinto had been sailinc:, at eisrht 
o'clock, I exercised my usual caution and watchfulness. 
I consulted the sailing-master, the navigating officer 
of the ship ; received from him his reckonings, had the 
position of the ship, at that time, pricked out upon the 
chart, and examined it carefully myself. I not only 
received his report, but his assurance, that the ship might 
be run, with perfect safety, south by west, for a dis- 
tance of twenty miles — that no risk could be possibly 
encountered by doing so ; for, if the course were kept, 
a light would be seen ; that, after running twenty miles, 
she should tack about, with her head to the northward 
and westward, the engines being slowed down to four 
miles an hour. After careful examination, I ap^^roved 
the suggestions of the sailing-master, and directed him 
to give the orders necessary to carry out these views. 
At tills time, the ship was ascertained to be about 
twenty-nine miles and a half from the nearest point of 
danger. 

I refer to these matters, in this connection, to show, 
that at eight o'clock on the evening of the 31st of Decem- 
ber, I exercised my usual caution. That I did not permit 
the course which the ship was sailing to be changed 
without carefully examining the chart, and without con- 
sulting with the sailing-master, and that I did not conclude 
to alter the course she was standing, until after I received 
his usual report, is sustained by incontrovertible evi- 



28 

(lence. Is there any exliibitioii of negligence, or any- 
thing improper, in what I did, as captain of the San 
Jacinto up to this tin^e ? Is there a member of this 
court", th.at under similar circumstances, would have 
acted differently ? In what respect would his conduct 
have been otherwise ? The position of navigating 
officer. u[)on a government ship, is one requiring great 
knowledge of navigation, and is of vast responsibility, 
and Mr. Wright seems to have been eminently fitted for 
his place. His special charge was the navigation of the 
ship, and he had, up to the 3 1st of December, safely 
conducted her through the uncertain currents of the 
latitude she was in, notwithstanding the distances 
measured by the log are considered uncertain. It was 
not only prudent in me, but it was my duty to regard 
the judgnzent and advice of this navigating officer ; for, 
had I not done so, and the ship, in consequence thereof, 
iiad been lost, I would have assumed a fearful responsi- 
bility, wliich no commander would be willing to take 
upon himself. I aver, therefore, that I did, at eight 
o'clock on the evening of the 31st of December, take 
all the precautions for safety that a prudent man could 
take, and this fact is established by the most positive 
proof. No witness offers anything in opposition to this 
statement. Who declares it to be untrue ? Can the 
Judge Advocate put his finger on the testimony ? Can 
any member of this honorable court do it? How then, 
is it to be disbelieved, in the face of all the testimony 
which demonstrates it to be true ? I, therefore, feel 
safe in considering it as incontrovertibly established, 
that, at eight o'clock, on the evening of the 31st of 
December, the chart was examined, and the ship 
was found to be in latitude 27® 8' North, and longitude 
76'=' 4S' West ; that a consultation was had between the 



29 



sailing-master and myself, in which the chart was exam- 
ined, °and the position of the ship pricked out ; and it 
was determined, in the consultation, that the ship should 
run south by west for twenty miles, and the engines 
slowed down to four knots per hour, and that when 
she had run that distance, she should be put about, with 
her head to the northward and westward. 

If it were determined, nfter examining the chart, and 
after the consultation which took place at eight o'clock 
on the evening of December 3 1st, that the ship should 
be steered, after that hour, twenty knots in the direc- 
tion of south by west, the engines to be slowed down 
to lour knots an hour, and when she had run that dis- 
tance, to tack about, putting her head to the northward 
and westward, the question arises, "Was the course 
determined upon a proper one for the vess-d to run ?" 
The object in wishing to be near shore at all, was to 
capture, if possible, cei tain blockade-runners which had 
been seen and chased during the day, and it was con- 
sidered desirable to be as near land as prudent in order, 
that if again seen, they could be chased offshore. The 
motive, therefore, which prompted the desii'e, was at 
least, meritorious, and manifested both zeal and anxiety 
to effect their capture. Let us examine the evidence 
bearing on this "point; ior, it will show conclusively, 
that a^course south by west, was a proper one to steer, 
under all the circumstances which surrounded the case. 
Tlie Judge-Advocate called William G. Wright, the 
sailing-master of the ship. He testified that, after 
examining the chart, and fully considering the position 
of the ship, he expressed a decided opinion tliat at eight 
o'clock, on the evening of the 3 1 st of December,she could 
run twentv miles on a course south by west, at the 
rate of lour knots an hcur, and that after running that 



30 

distance, she should tack about, putting her head to the 
northward and westward; — that no danger could be 
encountered by pursuing that course, for, if continued, 
a light would be seen. This was the judgment 
of this intelligent witness, produced, as has been said, 
by the Judge-Advocate, and who proved himself familiar 
with the topics about which he was speaking. His 
position in the Navy is one of responsibility, and, being 
placed as sailing-master on the San Jacinto, it was 
proper that he should be consulted by me when any 
change of course became necessary. Apart from the 
fact, that this gentleman was qualified for his pos^, both 
by study and experience, to dischage his duties, the 
law presumes, and every one has a just right to act 
upon that presumption, that a person holding an office 
or appointment under the Government, is qualified to 
discharge its duties, and it was, therefore, eminently 
proper, that great reliance should be placed upon his 
judgment. No witness has expressed, upon the record 
of this court, a judgment contrary to that entertained 
by Mr. Wright, but what remaining proof there is, is 
strongly in favor of its confirmation. The opinion of 
the Court of Inquiry, in my case, is strong and em- 
phatic on this point; for, it expressly deternnnes, that 
had the order given by me, to run the ship not exceed- 
ing four knots an hoar for twenty miles, and when she 
had run that distance, to tack about, been strictly 
obeyed, the ship would not have been lost. It is im- 
possible for language to be more empiiatic, and my 
judgment, in giving the order, has received the highest 
indorsement. Besides, Cnptain Frazer, the intelligent 
witness who was called on my part, says, that if he 
had been in command of the San Jacinto, with a proper 
object in view, such as the capture of blockade-runners. 



31 

he would have considered himself safe jn running with- 
in five miles of the coast ; that, under all the circum- 
stances, he considered the order given by me, on the 
niffht of the 31 st of December, to steer south by west, in 
the manner st ited, was a correct one. The judgment of 
this witness is to be especially relied upon ; for, his 
experience, as above remarked, in the navigation of the 
Bahama Banks, in the merchant service, the Revenue 
service of the United States, and in the employ of the 
underwriters, was considerable. He had been along 
the whole line of the reef> in the neighborhood where 
the San Jacinto was lost, and was familiar with it. I, 
therefore, respectfully submit that the order given by 
me, to run the ship the distance, and in the manner 
stated, was a safe and proper one, and I take it to be 
proved without further argument. 

Sufter me here to ask, What is the advantage of a 
trial, and the examination of witnesses on this portion 
of the case, if the proposition just stated as proven, 
is not to be considered, by this court, as established? 
Two most intelligent witnesses have sworn positively, 
without any hesitation o- qualification in their state- 
ments, that the course ordered by me to be run, after 
eight o'clock, on the night of the 31st of December, was 
a correct one, and in no respect improper, and that 
if it had been carried out, as directed, the ship could 
not have been lost. The Court of Inquiry, not merely 
in substance, but in language, have expressed the same 
opinion. What witness, who has been examined in 
this court, has expressed a belief to the contrary? 
The Secretary of the Navy, in the charge and specifi- 
cations he has sent liere for trial, does not allude to the 
course the ship was sailing, nor does he charge, nor 
intimate in the specifications, that the course ordered, 



32 

south by west, was wrong. You, as my judges, have 
been sworn to determine my case upon the evidence. 
How, then, with all the evidence one way, and not a 
scintilla of proof to the contrary, can you do anything 
but adjudicate in my favor? For me to introduce 
further evidence, upon a point not controverted by any 
witness, would be only adducing cumulative proof, and, 
at best, would be a work of supererogation. If two 
honorable, intelligent, and credible witnesses, like Sail- 
ing Master Wright and the navigator Frazer, whose 
reputation for truth has never been, and never can be, 
impeached — one of them called by the prosecution, the 
other by the defense — are not credited by you, the 
point could not be established, though the witness 
rose from the dead. 

Having shown that the order to steer south by west, 
in the manner indicated, was a necessary and proper 
order, I now come to consider whether it was actually 
given by me, and whether it was communicated to the 
officer of the deck. 

On this question there is conflict of testimony, but 
there can be no doubt as to how the fact was when the 
evidence respecting it is considered. My allegation is, 
that I did give an order that the ship should be steered 
south by west, in the manner already stated, and that I 
did du-ect the sailing-master, who usually delivered my 
orders, to communicate it to the officer of the d^ck, and 
it was so communicated. Actino; Ensis::n Edwin B. 
Pratt, who was that officer, and who bad the first 
watch, expressly denies this allegation to be true, and 
he positively states, that no such order was given to 
him, but says that he was directed to steer any course 
between south and southwest, and to run the ship 
twenty-five miles before he called the master. This 



33 

order he passed to Acting Ensign Charles R. Fleming, 
who relieved hiin, and who had charge of the deck 
when the ship went ashore. Between these two con- 
flicting and opposite statements this court must decide* 
and say which one of them is to be believed. The wit- 
nesses who have testified on this point, and whose evi- 
dence is conflicting, are witnesses for the prosecution; 
and if their credibility were considered as equal, it would 
not, of itself, prove that the order in question had not been 
given, or that it had not been communicated by Sailing 
Master \¥right to the officer of the deck, but the most 
it could accomplish, would be to create a doubt. Where 
a prosecution leaves a case in such a position, on its own 
testimony, it has never yet been held sufficient to con- 
vict the meanest culprit, much less one who has occu- 
pied an honorable position in life, and enjoyed a hish 
character for care -and vigilance in the management of 
property confided to iiis charge. In ail criminal courts, 
doubts are always thrown into the scale in favor of the 
accused, and a government which prosecutes a citizen, 
for any offense, is obliged to make out its case by clear 
aflSrmative proof, free from ambiguity or doubt. Here, 
however, it is clear, that one part of the prosecution's 
evidence is in direct conflict with another part, and 
their own witnesses stand in opposition to each other. 

In making the foregoing observations, I do not wish 
it, for a moment, to be imagined, that I ask for an 
acquittal upon any such ground, nor do I wish to escape 
just censure, if I deserve it, by the operation of any 
mere technical rule. I stand upon a much more sub- 
stantial basis, and rely upon evidence which will conclu- 
sively demonstrate, that from the hour I assumed com- 
mand of the San Jacinto, up to the unfortunate moment 
when she was lost from disobeying and neglecting my 
8 



34 



orders, I did my whole duty as an officer and a man, 
with a fidelity, zeal and watchfulness that has been 
rarely exceeded. This will be made clear from the 
evidence. It will show> that on the evening of the 3Lst 
of December, I did give orders to steer the ship south 
by west, in the manner which I have heretofore stated, 
and that the orders were con-jmunicated to Acting 
Ensign Pratt, the officer of the deck, notv/ithstanding 
his positive statement to the contrary, I now proceed 
to adduce the proof. 

Acting Master and Pilot William Richardson was the 
officer of the deck whom Acting Ensign Pratt relieved, 
and he has stated, that when he surrendered the deck to 
him, the ship was heading southwest by south, and her 
engines were moving slowly. He declared on oath, that 
when he was relieved by Pratt, at eight o'clock on the 
evening of the 31st of December, the ship wassteerioga 
course southwest by south, and that on being relieved 
he went below, and came again on deck in about ten 
minutes, when he found the course of the ship 
had been changed to south by west. Acting Ensign E, 
B. Pratty informed him, that the orders were to go not 
over four or four and a half knots an hour, and that he 
had told the engineer on watch to run as slow as 
possible. He further mentioned, that the order that the 
ship was to run on the course south by west, came from 
the captain ; that he was to run in that direction 
twenty or twenty-five miles, and then the ship was to 
be put on the off-shore tack. Novv, it is most respect- 
fully submitted, that this statement of Acting Master 
and Pilot William Richardson is in direct conflict 
with the evidence of Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, 
and is strongly corroborative of what is stated 
by Sailing Master Wright. He testified as follows : 



35 

" I inyself gave the order to Mr. Pratt to steer south 
by west, until the ship had run twenty miles from eight 
o'cloclv, this order being given at about fifteen minutes 
past eight, after I had fixed the ship's position on the 
chart, and given the position to the captain. This order 
was given by direction of Captain Meade." Acting Master 
and Pilot William Richardson , has also, sworn that 
Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt told him, that the captain 
had ordered him to run souUi by west, and that that 
was the reason why her course had been changed from 
southwest by south. This change was made soon after 
Acting Master and Pilot Richardson had been relieved, 
for, he discovered it by looking at the compass, and it 
was that, that led him to talk to Acting Ensign E. B. 
Pratt about it. John Thomas Morris, the Orderly, states 
positively, that just after eight o'clock I gave him orders 
to carry to Acting Ensign Pratt. The order was, 
"To keep the ship's head south by west, and go four 
knots." Azariah L. Spinney, Acting Master's Mate, says 
that "he had the watch from six to eight o'clock ; that at 
eight she was heading south by west ; that before I left the 
deck I learned that the course for the nis^ht, after ei2;ht 
o'clock, was to be south by west, and the number of 
knots four ; she was to be put about at twelve o'clock , I 
learned this from Acting Master's Mate Tripler, at 
about twenty minutes past eight." Eugene A. Smalley, 
FirstLieutenantof Marines, was also on deck from ten min- 
utes after eight o'clock up to about half-past eight. He 
says : " I heard Captain Meade give the order to the 
ofilicer of the deck. Acting Ensign Pratt, to run not ex- 
ceeding four knots an hour, and go about at one o'clock." 
Now, it is clear that, if the course south by west had 
been run by Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, during his whole 
watch, and if he had delivered the order, which he had 



86 

received himself, properly to Acting Ensign Charles E. 
Fleming, the accident which happened to the ship could 
not have taken place. 

How WAS THFS ORDER EXECUTED? Elijah 11. Ty- 

son, the engineer of the first watch of the night of the 
31st of December, gives the following account of the 
matter ; " I relieved Mr. Coney at eight o'clock, P. M., 
on the evening of. Saturday, the 31st of December. 
He reported to me that the engines were making thir- 
teen revolutions. Having no orders to the contrary, I 
continued making the same. About nine o'clock, P. M., 
Acting Ensign Pratt, the officer of the deck, spoke 
to me, and asked me what number of revolutions I was 
making. I told him thirteen and eight-tenths. He 
said the ship was going at nearly six knots. At 
five minutes before ten o'clock, he spoke to me again, 
and said, he wanted me to make about four or five 
knots, and to slow down the engines accordingly. The 
fore and aft sails were set at the time. At precisely 
ten o'clock I slowed down to ten revolutions, the same 
speed that we always ran to make that time. Even 
then, there was a lash on the shaft, as the sails were 
drawing well. I continued to make ten revolutions 
from ten, P. M., up to the time that Mr. Watts relieved 
me." 

James E. Watts, Third Assistant Engineer, who 
relieved Mr. Tyson, swears, that " the engines were 
making ten revolutions, and that they wished him to 
run slow, and make between nine and ten revolutions, 
but that he received no order about slowing the engines 
from the officer of the deck. That at the rate of ten 
revolutions the speed of the ship, without sails, was 
three knots forty-nine hundredths," and he added, that 
the fore and aft sails were set and drawino; well. 



37 

At twelve o'clock, (midnight,) Acting Ensign E. B. 
Pratt was relieved by Acting Ensign Charles R. Flem- 
ing, who, on taking charge of the deck, was told by 
Acting Ensign Pratt to run as slow as possible ; that 
the ship had been making a south-southwest course, 
that is, twenty-two and a half degrees west of south, 
but had broken off south by west half west, that is, 
between sixteen and seventeen degrees west of south ; 
that the order was to run about twenty -five miles and 
tack ship, and when he tacked, to call Mr. Wright, the 
Sailing Master, and he added that she had made twenty 
miles. To the question, which Acting Ensign Charles 
R. Fleming asked Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, what 
course had been given him to steer, he answered, " No 
course — by the wind," and that the wind was about west 
by south and west-southwest, that is, between sixty- 
seven and a half and seventy-eight and three-quarter 
degrees west of south. Being told by Acting Ensign E. 
B. Pratt, that the course " was by the wind," and hav- 
ing learned from the man at the helm, that she was 
heading south by west half west, Fleming says, " I 
gave him the course to run by the wind," that is to say, 
to run her as near as possible west, instead of steering 
within one point or eleven and a quarter degrees of due 
south. Add to this, that Mr. Fleming says, that he 
found, by the log, that the ship had made twenty-one 
miles, instead of twenty, as represented by Acting En- 
sign Pratt ; and this additional fact, that the log repre- 
sents the wind as west, and you will be able to form 
some idea how my orders for navigating the ship were 
carried out. 

Thus, then, it is shown by the two officers of the 
deck, that the distance prescribed by my order had been 
more than accomplished at 12 o'clock, and that the 



38 

course prescribed by me had been totally neglected 
down to that hour, and that from that hour until she 
struck the reef, my directions were still more grossly 
violated. In fact, the ship's head was turned directly 
toward the reef, which seems to have been done with 
some labor and pains. You will recollect that, when 
Sailing Master Wright was under examination, I in- 
quired of him whether,in his opinion, the changing of the 
course of the ship from south by west to south-south- 
west did not carry the ship more directly toward the 
land, and to consequent danger, to which he replied, that 
it did. 

I will here remark, in this connection, that Acting 
Ensign E. B. Pratt's memory is inaccurate in regird to 
the distance to be run before tacking to the northward 
and westward ; for, he tells Acting Ensign Fleming, that 
the distance to be run was to be about twenty-five 
miles. Of the speed alone, he seems to have had a bet- 
ter idea, as he told Acting Ensign Fleming that it was 
not to exceed four or five knots an hour. And yet, for 
the first two hours of his watch, he permitted the 
ensiues to be run at the rate of thirteen revolutions and 
eight-tenths, equal to a speed of six knots an hour by 
the steam alone, to say nothing of the propelling power 
of the sails, equal, as is stated by some of the witnesses, 
to an additional speed of from one to two and a half 
miles an hour. At ten o'clock, P. M., Pratt says, in his 
evidence before this court, that he hove the log and 
found that the ship was going five and two-eighth knots 
an hour, and he says that he only logged her five knots, 
not giving her the speed she was actually making. He 
also testified, that at eleven o'clock he hove the log again, 
which showed that at that hour, she was sailing five 
knots an hour. He then adds, alluding to me, that I 



39 



told him "I did not want to go so fast as that — that I 
did not want to go more than four or five knots an hour, 
or tliree or four knots an hour, I am not sure which." 
What sort of a memory, do you suppose this man Pratt 
has, or how are you to place any reliance upon the 
accuracy of his testimony ? He was not sure, whether I 
told him, I wished to so four or five knots an hour, or 
whether it was three or four knots an hour, that I had 
mentioned. A marvelous difference between two dis- 
tances, only about two miles an hoar, making a variance 
of eight miles during the four hours' duration of his 
watch ! Common sense, however, shows what the 
direction given w^as, or else language is without intel- 
ligible meaning. If he told me, that the ship was mak- 
ing five knots an hour, and I replied that the speed was 
too fast, it surely must have been three or four knots 
an hour that I ordered, or there would have been no 
appropriateness in my answer. Pratt, insists that the 
sails had no effect upon the ship, except to steady her ; 
and this, though they were full and drawing well, and 
caused the shaft to produce a back lash as soon as the 
rate of the engines had been reduced to ten revolutions ; 
though the back-lashing of the shaft, must have demon- 
strated to him, that the ship was advancing at a speed 
exceeding that imparted to her by the engines, after 
their rate had been so reduced. Thus admonished that 
the speed of the ship, even after the slowing of the 
engines, was exceeding the limit of the order, 3'^et he 
did not take in the sails. In fact, he manaijed the sails 
with extreme ignorance or heedlessness, paying no 
attention, though warned that that alone might cause the 
loss of the ship. It is true, that no special directions 
were given to the officer of the deck in regard to the 
sails. Permitting them to stand, or taking them in, 



40 



was left to his discretion. If the required rate of four 
knots an hour, could not be obtained by reducing the 
speed of the engine, it could have been accomplished by 
taking in the canvas. My conclusion is from what 
has been stated, that it is incontrovertibly established, 
by the proof, that my orders for the navigation of the ship 
were communicated to Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, the 
officer of the deck, at a few minutes past eight o'clock, P.M. 
and that he wholly disregarded them. If the course 
south by west had been run by him, during his whole 
watch, and if he had delivered the order which he had 
received himself properly to Fleming, the accident 
which happened to the ship could not have taken place. 
I will here remark, that there is nothing in, Pratt's 
evidence, nor in his antecedents, as stated by hin)self, 
that entitles him to any very distinguished consideration. 
He is, as we shall see presently, contradicted in many 
particulars by the other witnesses in the cause. In 
reference to the orders for the sailing of the ship, and 
his not having received them, he is contradicted by 
Sailing Master Wright, by Richardson, who received the 
statement of what the orders were from his own lips, 
and by Spinney, by Morris, who carried him the orders, 
and by Smalley, who heard me deliver them to him. 
Here are five witnesses who stand opposed to him, on 
the most vital point of inquiry before this Court-Martial, 
and, is his credit to be esteemed higher than that of all 
of them — vv'ho are unimpeached — and who have sworn in 
the same transaction ? Besides, these five witnesses ara 
wholly uninterested in the result, while Pratt is most 
deeply concerned, and, in swearing against me, is swear- 
ing for himself. If you can be seriously asked to credit 
the evidence of one witness, so situated, and you act 
upon the suggestion, and believe him in preference to 



41 



the five other witnesses who contradict him, then, I 
submit, that evidence is a valueless and delusive defense, 
and that trial is a mockery of justice. 

I have said, that we would presently see, that Pratt 
is contradicted in every material statement he has made 
by the other witnesses in the cause. I now proceed 
to show, that the remark is true; and I particularly 
request your attention to what I have to say. Pratt 
swears, in his testiniony (I speak by the record, and 
quote his exact words, and challenge any conti'adic- 
tion), that I " came on deck but once on the night of 3 1st 
of December. I think it was between eleven and twelve 
o'clock. He remained on deck, at that time, between 
five and ten minutes." Now, the proof is, that I was 
on deck at a little past eight o'clock, and also on deck 
again at ten and a half o'clock, and that Pratt must have 
known tiiis fact to be true for, I was in conversation 
with him, on each occasion ; and, yet, he has deliberately 
sworn, that I was not on deck at either of the hours 
specified. He could not, however, have forgotten the 
circumstances ; ior, the transactions of that fearful and 
perilous night, must have been impressed upon the 
memory of each actor in the scene, as if engraved with 
a pen of steel. Hence, I invite you to the proof: — 

Sailing Master Wright says : '• I saw Captain Meade 
on deck twice ; I do not know how often he might 
have been there. He was on deck first, after I had 
given the order to the officer of the deck, some twenty 
minutes after eight o'clock ; as his custom was, to see that 
his orders had been complied with. He was on deck again 
between ten and ten and a half o'clock." He says that 
the visit to the deck after ten o'clock was impressed oa his 
mind, from the fact, of his being nervous and restless 
from two nights duty previously. He was disturbed 



42 



by the striking of four bells, (ten o'clock), and turned 
out immediately, and went on deck. Captain Meade 
was then standing on the poop, port side, talking with 
the officer of the deck. When the captain saw him 
come out of the ward-room companion-way, Captain 
Meade said to him : " How is she going along, Mr. 
Wright ?" He looked at the compass, and replied to 
him, " Very well." Captain Meade then addressed 
himself to the officer of the deck, and said: " Well, Mr. 
Pratt, we'll let her go until she has run her twenty 
miles, then call Mr. Wright, and let me know, and we 
will put her about with her head to the northward and 
westward." Here is one witness, called by the prosecu- 
tion, who contradicts Pratt, and proves, that I was upon 
deck at a little past eight o'clock, and also at a little after 
ten, and he narrates a conversation which I had with 
the officer of the deck at the latter hour. A. L. Spinney, 
another prosecuting witness, says he saw " me on deck 
at about twenty minutes past eight o'clock, on the quarter 
deck, in company with Mr. Pratt, the officer of the deck." 
I. N. Quackenbush, a third prosecuting witness, says : 
" I saw Captain Meade at his cabin door, I think as I was 
going below, a few minutes after eleven o'clock. I saw 
liim on deck at about eight o'clock." William Lono-swears 
that at about ten minutes past eight o'clock he saw me 
standing on the poop, alongside of the officer of the 
deck, John Thomas Morris, the Orderly, saw me go 
on deck at about ten minutes after eijjht o'clock. He saw 
me conversing with the officer of the deck, Acting 
Ensign Pratt, and said that I returned to my cabin at 
half-past eight. He swears, that I came on deck again at a 
quarter past ten o'clock, and returned to my cabin at 
twenty minutes of eleven, and that I did not go on deck 
again during his watch. His watch was from eiiiht to 



43 

twelve o'clock. Eugene A. Smalley swears, tliat lie saw me 
deck at from fifteen to twenty minutes past eight o'clock, 
and that he saw me conversing with the officer of the 
deck, Acting Ensign Pratt. Here, therefore, are three 
witnesses for the prosecution, viz., Wright, Spinney 
and Quackenbush, and three witnesses for the defense, 
viz., Long, Morris and Smalley, making together six 
witnesses, who positively contradict Pratt, and swear 
that I was with him, on the deck of the ship, at a little 
past eight o'clock, and also at a little past ten o'clock, on 
the evening of the 31st of December, conversing with 
him ; and yet, he has deliberately sworn that I was not on 
deck until between eleven and twelve o'clock at night, 
and that he was5?^7eof it. Who, then, will be believed by 
this court — Pratt, or the six witnesses whose names I 
have given, and whose testimony I have stated ? Apart 
from the important consideration, that Pratt is swearing 
for himself, you must, in order to believe him, discredit 
the six witnesses called from both sides of this case, 
and hold, that they have deliberately perjured them- 
selves, and that too, without any motive. Philosophy 
teaches us, that men never act without a motive, and 
especially commit cime, and forswear themselves, 
unless there be a cause strong and impelling. If, there- 
fore, you condemn me, let not your judgment, with its 
attendant consequences, rest upon your crediting the 
testimony of Pratt, in opposition to all the other evi- 
dence in the cause; but, I beseech you, for your ov^m 
sakes, if for no other reason, place your finding upon 
some more satisfactory and substantial basis. 

Acain : Actincr Ensimi Pratt hasi testified, in answer 
to a question put to him by this court, that I gave him 
no orders to call me, after the ship had sailed a speci- 
fied distance. This statement of his is contradicted by 



44 



Sailing Master Wright with great distinctness; for, he 
swears, that when I was on the deck, between ten and 
half-past ten o'clock, on the evening of December 31,1 
ar^dressed myself to the officer of the deck, and said to 
him: ''Well, Mr. Pratt, we'll let her go until she 
has run her twenty miles, then call Mr. Wright, and 
let me hioiv, and we will put her about, with her head 
to the northward and westward." The statements of 
these two witnesses are diametrically opposed. Both 
of them cannot be true. Which of them will you 
believe ? 

Once more : Acting Ensign E. B. Pratt, has stated, in 
his evidence, that during his watch, the fore and aft sails 
of the ship were set. The direction given to him, accord- 
ing to his own statement, was to run the vessel as slow 
as possible, so that the speed should not exceed five 
miles an hour. To prevent the distance she was to go, 
from being overrun, he was to have the engines elowed 
down. Hence, it became important to know, what in- 
fluence the sail she was carrying, had on the progress of 
the ship. In repl}^, to a question asked him upon this 
point, he said : " When the jib was on her, it might 
have accelerated her speed a little ; the sails which 
Were on her were merely to steady her, as the sea was 
running pretty heavy." He adndts, that possibly the jib 
might have advanced her a little, and then adds ; "1 tliink, 
sometime between nine and ten o'clock,P.M., the jib-pend- 
ant was carried away, and the jib hauled down." E. K. 
Tyson, Third Assistant Engineer, states that at ten 
o'clock, P. M., the sails were drawing well. Jeremiah 
Callaghen, also the Boatswain's Mate, who had the watch 
from eight to twelve o'clock, P. M., says the sails were 
wrapped full. Bright, also, swears that the sails were 
drawing pretty well ; and Alexander McCone represents 



45 

them as drawing well at eight and half in the evening, 
when he was on the deck. So, James E. Watts, the Third 
Assistant Engineer, swears that "the sails, in his opinion, 
creased the speed of the ship ; for the reason, that he 
lowered the steam, as, in his judgment, would be suffi- 
cient to run the engines at the speed which Tyson in- 
formed him he wished to run, and while he was timing 
the revolutions, he noticed a back-lash on the shaft, 
which was indicative of the speed of the vessel 
being greater than that at which the engines were 
running." He also swears, that the ship, without 
sails, would have been driven by the steam four 
knots and three-tenths per hour, allowing fifteen 
per cent, slip, and the engines making between nine and 
ten revolutions. Robert A. Williams, agreed in opinion 
with the other witnesses, and said, that the sails were 
drawing well. William Long, the Boatswain, also states' 
that the sails were wrapped full. Charles R. Fleming, 
Acting Ensign, testifies that, in his opinion, the fore and 
att sails advanced the speed o. the shij) about one knot 
an hour, without the jib. Pratt, as heretofore stated, 
swears that the jib-pendant was carried away between 
nine and ten o'clock, P. M., and the jib hauled down. 
That this statement was false, is shown by the other tes- 
timony in the case ; for, Sailing Master Wright swears, 
that he was on deck at ten and a half o'clock, and that the 
ship was carrying the jib then. This, it will be per- 
ceived, was one hour later than the hour at which Pratt 
states it was carried away. Wright then adds : " I was 
not on deck when it was taken in, but the boatswain's 
mate reported to me that it was taken in at seven bells, 
— half-past eleven o'clock." John Thomas Morris 
testifies that the jib-pendant was carried away at 
seven bells, or about half-past eleven o'clock. He 



46 

was the Orderly on duty at the cabin door from 
eight to twelve o'clock, P.M. His statement shows, 
that the jib pendant was carried away two hours later than 
stated by Pratt. Jeremiah Callaghen, Boatswain's ]\Iate, 
also had the watch from eight to twelve, P.M., and he con- 
firms what has been stated by Morris. He states that the 
jib-pendant was parted about seven bells, in the neigh- 
borhood of about half-past eleven o'clock, and adds : "I 
gave orders to haul the jib down, and repj irted to the officer 
of the watch, who ordered me to stow the jib." Wil- 
liam Long, Boatswain, says : " I asked Mr. Pratt if the 
jib-pendant was carried 'iway in his watch, who admit- 
ted to me that it was carried away at seven bells, and 
not, as Pratt has stated in his sworn testimony, between 
nine and ten o'clock." Lonu: further states : *' I asked 
him why he did not report it to me, or to the executive 
officer. I told him it was necessary, and that probably 
he might have lost the ship anyhow. He told me he 
forgot it ; he did not think it of much importance — did 
not think we would want it. On finding the jib-pend- 
ant on deck, I reported it to the executive officer." 
Listen to the following curious testimony of Pratt 
respecting the sails and jib, which I have extracted ver- 
batim from his testimony given before the Court-Martial 
in May last. How sensible and intelligent it is ! It is 
as clear as a London fog ! " I had some conversation 
with Mr. Fleming after the wreck, on the island, and 
talking with him about what sail was on the ship. I know 
I said I knew nothing but the fore ani aft sails were on 
when she went ashore. He said the jib was nut on her. 
I said I thought it was. I never thought anything 
more about it from tjjat time up till the time I 
appeared before the Court of Inquiry, when the ques- 
tion came through Captain Meade to me, ' if the jib 



47 

was carried away?' I said I didn't think it was. It 
took nie by surprise ; but I did not think it was. I 
have been thinking about it since, and I dont know what 
other time 3[r. Long was on deck with me when the 
sails were set. I recollect the orders being to hoist the 
jib, and I have thought since it must have been on that 
morning, for I was standing alongside of him when it 
was hoisted, and the pendant was carried away. I don't 
know what other day it could be, for we had not been 
only three or four days out of Key West. I think it 
was daylight at the time, for it strikes me I could see 
very plainly the sail. About the jib being taken in the 
first hour of that watch, I am not positive about that. 
It was at the first watch ; it might liave been alter nine 
o'clock. I know it was the first watch, but it might 
have been after the first hour, and I could not swear it 
was that watch, but I think it was, the more I have 
thought of it since that question was asked me." Pass- 
ing from this elegant extract, I will remark, that this 
court must perceive, that the witnesses mentioned in 
the foregoing statement, deny Mr. Pratt's averments as 
to the hour when the j;b pendant was parted, and con- 
trovert his opinion as to the effect of the sails on the 
speed of the ship. And yet, this is the witness whom 
you are asked to believe, in opposition lo all the other 
testimony in the cause. This, too, is the witness who 
states that he received the absurd and improbable order 
to steer the ship any course that he chose, between south 
and southwest. An order, it may be said, that no com- 
mander of a vessel ever gave before. 

In regard to this above most liberal order, permit me 
to remark, that it never could have been given by me, 
and I am sure, it never was given by the sailing-ujaster 
of the ship to Pratt ; for the reason, that the officer 



48 



examined the position of the ship on the chart but a 
few minutes before, and had advised me to steer the 
ship south b}' west, and to give such order to the officer 
of the deck. To have ordered Pratt to steer southwest 
by south, or any course between south and south- 
west, would have been at variance with all the master's 
reckonings, and no one will believe, that after advising 
me to steer one way, he would immediately go to Pratt 
and direct him to steer in another direction. Such con- 
duct would be at variance with all probabilities. But, 
what proves it to be untrue, is the sworn declaration of 
Wright himself, who states that I directed him to go 
to the officer of the deck, as if from me, and order him 
to steer south by v^est. But, it is evident from the very 
nature of things, that I never could have ordered any 
deck officer to steer a course that gave such large dis- 
cretion us would an order to steer anywhere between 
south and southwest have given him. It must be con- 
sidered, from what Pratt iumself has stated, that he 
did receive orders from Sailing Master Wright in regard 
to his course ; for in his pretended interviews with me, 
at an hour when the testimony of all the other wit- 
nesses, who have spoken on the subject, declare that 
I was not upon the deck, he states that I asked him how 
the ship was heading, and inquired as to whether he 
had not orders as to his course from Mr. Wright, to 
which he states I replied yes. This pretended conver- 
sation, admits the fact, that Pratt had received orders 
from him, but they were not such as he alleges. The 
proof is unanimous, and all the witnesses proclaim it, 
that I was a vigilant and exact officer, who gave my 
orders with marked precision, that admitted no latitude 
for construction, and that I was especially careful about 
the navigation of the ship. No one but Pratt, alleges 



49 

that so loose an order, as he states, was ever given on 
board my sliip. To have done so would have contra- 
dicted the habit of my life. I cannot believe, that the 
evidence of this man Pratt, will be credited in opposi- 
tion to what the members of this court know of my 
reputation for carefulness, and against all the positive 
testimony that I have referred to in my favor. It should 
be stated, in this connection, that it must be admitted 
that the ship was wrecked in consequence of the course 
steered by Pratt, during his watch from eight to twelve 
o'clock; for, although she went ashore during Fleming's 
watch,it was the result of the way which Pratt had directed 
him to steer, Pratt, therefore, was justly censurable 
for disobeying the order given him by Mr. Wright, and 
running a course different from the one directed. He 
has, therefore, a deep and abiding interest in casting the 
blame from off his own shoulders, and throwing the bur- 
den upon the back of any one else who can be made to 
bear it. That he was unquestionably a negligent and 
careless man, is manifest from wliat he voluntarily said 
about himself before the last Court-Martiai, and the 
loss of the sliip Courier, which was cast away on the 
Bahama Banks on June 14, 1S64, about fourteen miles 
south of Elbow Cay, and of which ship he was the 
naviijatinfl:; officer. 

Do not fail to carry in your recollection, the fact, 
that Acting Ensign Pratt was navigating officer of the 
ship Courier. In every position which he has occu- 
pied on board a ship, he seems to have been ignorant, 
slothful, and negligent in the performance of his duties. 
He was dismissed from the public service for negligence^ 
an offense precisely in the line of the one he committed 
on board the San Jacinto, on the evening of the 3ist 
of December, when he neglected to comply with 
4 



50 

the orders which were given to him for the sailing of 
the sliip. Negligence seems, indeed, to be his besetting 
sin ; and you will see how graphically he sketches his 
own character as an officer, in the following account 
which he gives of his dismissal from the service, and of 
the loss of the ship Courier. I give his own language : 
" I was very much surprised at my dismissal. I 
was dismissed from the service for negligence in the per- 
formance of my duty as navigating officer to the Courier. 
I kept the reckoning of the ship, but I did not consider 
myself a navigating officer. I never saw the cliart, or 
gave a course while I was in the ship. What I suppose 
they dismissed me for, in the Courc of Inquiry, was, 
they asked me if I worked out the position of the ship 
the night before she struck. I told them I did, but did 
not give it to the captain. They never asked me why. 
I believe they asked me why I did not give it to the 
captain that night. They did not ask me why I did 
not work out the position of the ship every night. After 
leaving Boston I worked out the position of the ship 
every night, and gave it to the captain, and as soon as 
the ship was clear of the land he did not pay any 
attention to it. One night the lights were blown out, 
and he had turned in. I told the executive officer of the 
ship that the captain paid no attention to my reckoning, 
and, in future, I told him, I should not work out the 
position of the ship, until in the neighborhood of land, 
as he did not seem to want it. And the night before 
the ship struck, the captain sent for Bowditch's Navi- 
gator, or asked me for it, and I supposed he worked out 
the position himself. I also worked it out, but aid not 
give it in to him." 

It thus appears, from the statement of Mr. Pratt, that 
he wrecked the ship Courier, almost within siglit of 



51 

where he had wrecked the San Jacinto. Had I known, 
that he was the navigating officer of the Courier at the 
time of her loss, I never would have permitted him to 
act as the officer of the deck on any vessel commanded 
by me. Knowing nothing to his prejudice, I had a right 
to presume, and I did presume, that he was fully com- 
petent for his place. But, what seems to aggravate his 
case is, that the disgrace into which he had fallen, worked 
no change in his habits or conduct. He curried it with 
him on board the San Jacinto, and soon found oppor- 
tunities to exhibit its effects. It was not only shown 
l>y his disregard of the orders given him by Sailing 
Master Wright on the evening of the Slat of December, 
1 864, and her consequent loss, but was also shown in 
smaller matters, such as attended the parting of the jib- 
pendant of the San Jacinto during liis watch on the same 
Bight. He did not report its loss to Fleming, who 
relieved him as officer of the deck, nor did he enter it 
on the log-slate, nor cause it to be inserted in the log- 
book. This w_.s most manifestly his duty, and any faith- 
ful officer or sailor would have done so. When Long, 
the Boatswain, inquired of him why he had not entered 
its parting on the log-slate, and also reported it to the 
executive officer of the ship, he coolly answered, he had 
forgotten it — considered it of little importance, and 
believed it would not be wanted. The evidence is, that 
it is customary to enter all such matters as the parting 
of the jib-pendant upon the log, and Pratt well know- 
ing the rule, if faithful to his trust, ough'', strictly to 
have complied with it. 

I must, in this connection, call your attention to an- 
other instance of the utter disregard of truth shown by 
Pratt in his evidence given before this court, upon the 
subject of the log-book, and his alleged reasons for not 



52 

signing it. It is a most singular circumstance, that in 
almost every instance where he makes a statement, and 
other witnesses speak of the same transaction, he is con- 
tradicted by them all. Indeed, I know of no one facfc 
spoken of by him in which he is corroborated by any one, 
except the fact that he was on board the ship, with the 
other parties when she was lost. The log-book, during 
Ms watch on the night of the 31st of December, was 
not signed by him. It was necessary, that he should 
have an excuse. What do you suppose it was ? I will 
give it in Pratt's own language: "It was the rule to 
sign the log-book every day ; I do not recollect of ever 
being told officially to sign the log of that watch ^ I was 
too sick to sign it at No Name Cay ; the log-book wa» 
sent to me just before I started for Key West, I think 
about five minutes before I left the beach; i'; was senfc 
in by the captain, as I understood it ; I had a bad bead- 
ache, and fainted away in camp ; I vomited, and was 
so weak that I could hardly walk. I could have written 
in a case of emergency." In opposition to this evidence 
of Pratt, Charles F. Ottinger, whose business it was to 
act as the copyist of the log-book^ states : " It was my 
duty to act as copyist of the log-book ; I took it daily 
from the cabin to procure the signature of the watch 
officers to it ; I requested Acting Ensign Pratt to sign 
the log for his watch for the 31st of December, 
1S64 ; I requested him on two occasions j the excuse 
he made on one occasion was that he had not the time 
just then to attend to it ; at the other time, he told me 
he would see to it, that it was all right. On the 12th 
of January I carried the book to the officers\ tent for 
the officers to sign, who were about to leave the island ; 
Mr. Pratt complained of being sick at the time ; I lett 
the log-book there in Mr. Ashbury's charge, who was 



then lying sick in his cot ; he signed up the log as far 
as he had to sign it ; I did not request Mr. Pratt on 
that da}^ to sign it, 'out he saw me bring the log-book 
in ; he was standing close over to the marine tent ; he 
was not doing anything at the time." In reference to 
the log-book, there was a special order given by me, 
through Sailing Master Wright, as is proven by him, 
directing, after t!ie ship was wrecked, that the officers 
should go to my tent every dav and sign their remarks 
on the log. 

It is needless to make any commentary on the above 
testimony respecting the log-book, and why Mr. Pratt 
neglected to sign it. His evidence is contradicted by 
Ottinger, who, from the necessity of his position, must 
have known all about it. He was, as he states, the 
copyist of the book, and if there were any official 
request necessary to procure the signatures of the offi- 
cers to it, the request of Mr. Ottinger was as much offi- 
cial as was necessary. He says, that he twice carried 
the book to Pratt, and on both occasions asked him to 
sign it; on one of them, Pratt excused himself, stating 
he had not time to attend to it, and on the other, he 
replied he would see to i*:, that it was all right. Ottin- 
ger, afterward, to wit, on the morning of the twelfth of 
January, 18G5, carried the book to the officers' tent, to 
procure the signatures of some of the watch officers who 
were about to leave the island. Pratt was included in 
the number. George Ashbury at that time was lying 
sick in his cot, but he signed his remarks. Mr. Pratt 
did not,and excuses himself here by saying that he was 
that day too sick, he had had a headache, had vomited, and 
was so weak that he could hardly walk. He then adds, 
sneeringly, " I could have written in a case of emer- 
gency." 



5i 



Now, I ask this court to notice, that Ashbuiy, who 
was more ill than Pratt, and who was confined to his 
cot, actually did sign the log, while Pratt, who was 
able to walk, aldiough it might have been with diffi- 
culty, neglected to do so. He would have signed his 
name, had it been an emergency, but he supposed that 
none had arisen. I should like to. know what, in his 
judgment, would amount to an emergency, if the wreck- 
ing of a ship on a reef, in the dead hour of the night, 
with hundreds of souls on board, did not amount to 
one? The emergency was increased, in so far as he 
was personally concerned, when he recollected, as he 
ought to have done, that he was the officer of the deck, 
through whose heedlessness and disobedience of orders, 
the calamity was caused. He must have known, even 
with his moderate amount of capacity, that the loss of a 
national vessel, and the facts and circumstances which 
attended it, would become the subject of a most search- 
ing and rigid inquiry, and, that nothing would be 
so important in making it, as a knowledge of the 
courses and distances which were run by the ship 
through the night of the loss. Yet, Pratt treats the 
log of that night, and its entries, so far as they con- 
cerned his watch, with the utmost indifference, and 
quitted the island without giving to the book the poor 
authentication of his own signature. By what name 
will you call all this? Is negligence a hard one to apply 
to it? Was it not his duty to sign that log, and by 
omitting to do so, did he not commit a breach of it ? 
And yet, you are asked to credit Mr. Pratt, whose 
whole career on shipboard, so far as it is made known 
to this court, has been one of continued and repeated 
negligence and omission of duty. He was neglige7it 
when he lost the Courier, and was dismissed from the 



55 

service for that cause. He was negligent when he did 
not report, to tlie proper officer, the parting of the jib- 
pendant, which occurred during his watch on the night 
of the disaster to the ship, although it was his duty to 
have done so, and then assigning, as a reason for his 
neglect, that he did not think it important to do so. 
He was again ncgligcjit, in omitting to sign the log con- 
taining the courses he had run during the night, which 
it was his duty to have done as officer of the deck. 
Will you not, then, naturally believe, that Acting Ensign 
Pratt does not state the truth when he alleges that he 
was ordered to steer, on the night of the 31st of Decem- 
ber, during his whole four hours' watch, a course tliat 
was dangerous in the extreme, and would inevitably 
lose the ship, and which course, he says, allowed him 
a discretion to run anywhere he chose between south 
and southwest ? 

Again : let me refer you once more to the mis- 
repesentations and untruths of Pratt, and to his tend- 
ency to utter falsehoods, even when they are unneces- 
sary to his purpose. He was asked by me, on cross- 
examination, whether my care and vigilance was not 
unremitting, and whether it did not extend to every 
part of the ship. Instead of answering the question, 
according to his best knowledge on the subject, he 
replied, that he did not know that he was a judge, and 
then volunteered the remark, that General Quarters 
were never had on board the ship while I was attached 
to it. The answer was in nowise responsive to the 
question, and his voluntary remark was untrue. There 
can be no doubt about this. Every witness who was 
examined after Pratt, and who was interrogated upon 
the point, stated, that the fact was otherwise. Sailing 
Master Wright stated that General Quarters were had 



56 

on board the San Jacinto while I was attached to her. 
He added : " I do not recollect the date of any one, but 
on or about the tenth of December, 1864, we were at 
General Quarters in the harbor of Key West. I men- 
tion this special occasion, from the fact that it was 
more thorough than any one on board the ship. The 
yards were properly slung, and the fishes were got out 
and triced up by the lower-mast, ready for lashing." 
Charles F. Ottinger says, " We had G-eneral Quarters 
very often." The gunner, Dunsmore, also swore, that 
General Quarters were had on the ship while I was 
attached to her. 

In reference to the matter of General Quarters, I will 
content myself with bar^'ly remarking that there are 
three witnesses who flatly contradict his statement. 
Can you refer me to o.ie witness who confirms him? 
Do you not perceive, how aptly the legal maxim, " Fal- 
sus in uno,falsus in omnibii'i,''^ applies to him ? 

I now intend to leave further comment on the ques- 
tion as to the credit that ought to be accorded to Pratt, 
and will pass on to consider other points of more import- 
ance. It has been suggested, that I was justly censura- 
ble for desiring to keep the vessel closer to the shore 
than common prudence would have dictated, espacially 
where the currents were uncertain, and the land but a 
few feet above the level of the sea. This point I have 
already considered, and will make but a few additional 
remarks upon it here. It is an accusation easily made, 
and apparently plausible upon its face, but it finds no 
warrant in any portion of the testimony given to this 
court. Whether such an allegation be true or false, can 
only be determined, like all other questions of fact, by 
the proof that has been given. The order that Wright 
swears he gave to the officer of the deck, was to run but 



57 

twenty miles on the course indicated by liim, but he 
says in his evidence, that if the shij> iiad run twenty-five 
miles on the same course, it would have placed her ten 
and a half miles from the reef. That if she were twenty- 
nine miles from the nearest land on the evening of 
December 31, and the current was running northwest 
at the rate of four knots an hour, and the ship was run- 
ning south by west by the compass, having made five 
knots an hour for four consecutive hours, she would 
have been sixteen miles northwest of the point at which 
she would have been had there been no cm-rent, and 
would have been twelve miles from the land. By adding 
one hour more, she would have been nine miles from 
the land. 

It must be recollected by this court, that the order I 
gave, directed that after the ship had run twenty miles, 
she was to tack about to the northward and westward. 
Had this order been strictly carried out by the officer of 
the deck, she would have been ten and a half miles from 
the reef at the time she was to be put about. This was 
the distance I desired to keep from the shore when I gave 
the order designating the course and distance to be run. 
No witness in the case, taking even the uncertain cur- 
rents into consideration, and the flict that the land was 
but a few feet above the level of the sea, has said that 
to approach within ten and a half miles of the shore 
would involve the slightest risk to the ship, or that I 
would have put her in dangerous proximity to it. The 
judgment of my sailing-master, whose opinion I was 
bound to regard, considered it prudent for me to give 
the order I did. What witness that has been examined 
on this trial has said that such a distance from the shore 
was either imprudent or hazardous to the ship ? The 
opinion of Wright is fully confirmed by the testimony 



58 

of Captain A. V. Frazer, about whose position and char- 
acter I have already spoken, who was examined as an 
expert, and who is familiar with the reef, and its dangers, 
upon which the San Jacinto was wrecked. He testified, 
that if he were the commander of a ship, wuth a proper 
object in view, such as the capture of blockade-runners, 
he would run within five miles of the coast, and would 
consider himself perfectly safe. The order I gave, if 
obeyed, would have kept the San Jacinto double the 
distance from the shore that was stated to be safe by 
Captain Frazer. Surely there can be no force in the 
allegation that I ventured imprudently near the shore ; 
and I trust I may safely leave its refutation to the con- 
clusive testimony given by the witnesses. 

It has been further suggested, though without any 
just reason, that want of care and neglect were exhib- 
ited by the sailing-master of the ship, in taking no observ- 
ation for longitude, after nine o'clock on the morning of 
the 31st of December, and that owing to this neglect, 
the longitude of the ship had to be computed by the log 
alone. The fact, that there was no observation taken 
for longitude during the time stated, is undoubtedly 
true, but the answer to the charge is a conclusive one, 
thut the state of the weather was such, that it could not 
be taken. The testimony of the witnesses on this point 
is incontrovertible, and there is no conflict between 
them in regard to it. Not a single witness expresses 
the opinion that it was possible to take an observation 
tor longitude after nine o'clock in the morning up to the 
time that the ship went ashore. Frequent and con- 
tinued attempts were made to do so. Wright, whose 
business it was to take them, states that it was too cloudy 
to permit any observations for longitude to be made 
between the periods specified, and that it was impossible, 



59 

at any time during the evening of the 31st, to take one. 
He carefully looked to see whether any star came on the 
meridian, the altitude of which he could get. but he as- 
certained that none would come before two o'clock in the 
morning. During the afternoon of the 31st of Decem- 
ber, Wright went upon the deck at a quarcer past three 
o'clock and remained there until after four, but tliat during 
all that time, he was unable to get one. He dechired 
that it was not possible for him to have taken an altitude 
by the North Star on that evening, for the reason, that 
the northern heavens were very obscure. He observed 
that circumstance, in particular. Now, this is clear and 
distinct evidence, fully answering the objection that 
there was negligence, in not taking the usual and neces- 
sary observations for longitude, but proving every pos- 
sible attempt was made. No witness controverts the 
truth of this statement, but all who speak of the weather 
confirm it. Fleming proves that the weather was slightly 
overcast during his watch, and to use his own language, 
a heavy bank was to southward. He says he does not 
know that it was possible to obtain the altitude of a star 
dui-ing his watch. The night, he adds, was overcast and 
partly cloudy. Long testifies, that the weather was cloudy 
from four o'clock in the afternoon up to midnight, and 
Williams says, that when he came on deck he could not 
see either moon or stars. So, Lieutenant Smalley gives 
evidence to the same effect, and swears, that after three 
o'clock in the afternoon no sights could be taken, and he 
would particularly remember the flict, because he was 
in the habit of marking time for the sailing-master. 
Surely all this consistent testimony of a positive charac- 
ter, ought to be deemed conclusive of the fact, that no 
observations for longitude could have been taken durinir 
the omitted time, or they would have been taken by 



60 

Sailing Master Wright. How can the honorable court 
find that observations ought to have been taken, when 
no witness proves that it was possible to do so, and when 
what is actually proved, shows that they could not be 
obtained ? I therefore ask this court. How it is possible, 
that I can be censured for negligence in not taking 
observations, when the proof is positive that it could 
not be done ? 

But, it has been further objected against me, that, 
considering uncertain currents were known to exist, and 
that the distance measured by the log is always more 
or less uncertain, that greater prudence should have 
been exercised, and greater vigilance shown, to have 
my order to run the ship only twenty miles from eight 
o'clock, P.M., strictly attended to. On what ground 
can such a charge possibly be sustained 1 What sin of 
omission did I possibly commit? Everything that I 
said and did in regard to the order given to Pratt, 
manifested in its preparation extraordinary care, and I 
took pains to provide for its literal execution, and that 
no mistake could arise in regard to it. Every move- 
ment that I made at eight o'clock, and after that hour, on 
the 31st of December, proves the exercise jf caution 
and of much consideration, and shows that ray thoughts 
were exclusively given to the subject. What did I do, 
in every step of my proceedings ? I sent for Wright, 
the sailing-master, and received from him the reck- 
onings of the ship, up to eight o'clock, and required him 
to prick out, for me, upon the chart, her exact position 
at that hour. I examined the chart with him, con- 
sulted and conversed as to the course that should be 
steered. Mr. Wright, in this interview, assured me 
that I might safely run a course south by west for 
twenty miles, and then tack about, and put the ship to 



61 

the northward and westward. Her engines were to be 
slowed down to four knots an hour. During the day 
we had been chasing blockade-runners, but, toward the 
approach of night, they evaded our pursuit, and their 
snioke was no longer visible. For that reason, I desired 
to be as near the land by morning as was prudent, so 
that if they were again seen, they could be chased off 
shore. I approved the course it was proposed to run 
the ship, and acquiesced in the suggestions made by 
Sailing Master Wridit. I directed him to have the 
order, to run the ship soutli by west, communicated to 
the officer of the deck. Wright reported to me that he 
had given the order to Pratt, and had taken every pre- 
caution to avoid all danger. I went on deck a few 
minutes after eioht o'clock, and ac-ain at fifteen minutes 
after ten. While there, the navigating officer came on 
deck, and I asked him how the ship was heading. 
He answered. *' South by west." I then turned to the 
officer of the deck, and said : " Mr. Pratt, you will let 
her go as she is going, south by west, until she 
has gone her twenty miles, and then call 
Mr. Wright and myself, and we will turn 
her about." Wright heard me give this order 
to Pratt, which was the same that Wright had 
given to Pratt at eight o'clock, or a few minutes after, on 
the evening of the 31st of December. Several other 
witnesses also testify, that they saw me on deck m con- 
versation with Pratt, whose testimony I have stated 
elsewhere on a preceding point. So, Engineer Bright 
swears I told him I wanted the engines slov/ed down as 
much as possible. These facts prove that I did exercise 
the greatest vigilance to have the order to run the ship 
only twenty miles from eight o'clock, P.M., most strictly 
attended to. My only purpose in remaining on deck 



62 

was to make it certain that the officer of the deck fully 
understood the course he was to run. So, my talking 
to the engineer, was to make it sure that my order to 
slow the engines was properly apprehended by him. I 
did not go below until I was satisfied on these points ; 
and then I did not retire, but threw myself down, with 
my clothing still upon me, for the purpose of temporary 
repose. It was known to all on shipboard, that I had 
been up the two previous nights, and my physical con- 
dition was exhausted and needed some repose. Still, I 
did not abate my care and anxiety for the safety of the 
ship ; and, had my directions been faithfully obeyed, all 
would have gone right. I knew that each man was 
stationed at his appropriate post, witli orders that I had 
reason to believe were fully understood, and I had con- 
fidence in the capacity and fidelity of the officers of my 
ship. Each one had his own sphere of duty, and I 
expected that each one would perform it. I had aright 
to act on that presumption, and rest satisfied that both 
the sailing-master and the officer of the deck understood 
theii duty, and would perform it. I exercised a general 
supervision over the persons under my command ; but 
it was the special duty of the sailing-master to navigate 
the ship; and if she were lost, the blame would be more 
immediately imputed to him, whoever he might be. Nor 
did the fact that uncertain currents were known to exist 
make any reason why my prudence should have beeti 
greater than it was. These currents were taken into 
the calculation made by the navigating officer, and he 
made an allowance for the current of a half point west. 
This is positive proof, that I omitted no caution, but 
exercised all the vigilance that was possible in the case. 
From the summary of the f:'cts, in my case, thus 
briefly stated, I conclude that it is imp ssible that I ca.i 



63 

be found guilty of omitting the exercise of due care and 
vigilance. The proof is overwhelming, that my attention 
extended to every part of my duty, and was unremitting. 
I never took off my clothes, and vvas never in my bed 
from the time I left Key West until the occurrence of 
the unfortunate disaster which lost the ship. When 
I left the deck, as I have already stated, I saw that my 
orders were executed. Wfien I came on deck amiin, at 
somefifteen minutes after ten o'clock I repeated the order 
for steering the ship, if Sailing Master Wright is to be 
believed, and at that hour the engine had been slowed 
down to ten revolutions so that there was nothing to 
excite my suspicions that my orders wer not under- 
stood. This, I say, upon the supposition that you believe 
the order was given, as is stated by Mr. Wright and 
sworn to by the other witnesses. Now, am I to be 
censured for v^^ant of vigilance, after the disaster? 
Here, again, the testimony is perfectly concurrent, and 
it shows that by extraordinary perseverance, and at 
great risk of personal safety, I saved everything that 
could be removed from the ship, amounting in value to 
$30,000, exclusive of the great guns, which were, every 
one of them, preserved. 

To believe me guilty of inattention or negligence, 
you must be prepared to disbelieve the whole, and 
every part of Mr. Wright's testimony. If you believe 
any part of it, no valid reasons can be assigned for not 
believing it all. But, can any unprejudiced man j)re- 
tend to doubt the credibility of these witnesses? If he 
can, than he must hold : 

That he did not ascertain the position of the ship, at 
eight o'clock on the evening of the 31st of December: 

That her position, at that hour, was not twenty-nine 
and a half miles from the nearest point of danger : 



64 

That he did not form in his own mind a project of 
the niiiht's rnn : 

That he did not propose or suggest the same to me, 

That he did not prick out the position of the ship 
on the chart, and show it to me : 

That he did not suggest to me, that the ship could 
safely stand south by west twenty miles, before encoun- 
tering any danger : 

That after running this distance, she should be tacked 
and headed northward and westward : 

That she should run this distance in five houry, at the 
rate of four knots an hour : 

That I did not, after hearing his suggestions, cause 
him to go over his work in my presence, and that I did 
not verify the calculations by overlooking them, and 
seeing their correctness in person : 

That I did not direct him to give the order, in 
accordance with his su2:s?estions to the officer of the 
deck : 

That no such order was given to Mr. Pratt : 

And, setting aside each and every part of these posi- 
tions, you must be prepared to maintain, in order to 
convict we of the negligence and inattention laid to my 
charge, tluit the order to Pratt was : 

To steer the ship by the wind to any part of the com- 
pass between south and southwest, for fivo hours at 
the rate of five miles an hour. 

If, therefore, you can disbelieve Mr. Wright, under 
the circumstances stated, and credit the evidence of Mr. 
Pratt, I can entertain no hope from the result of your 
deliberations, 

One word more and I have done. I have endeavored 
— nay, I have shown my perfect innocence of all fault 



65 

respecting the charges made. I have demonstrated, that 
my only care was for the safety of the vessel committed 
to my keeping. That the habits of my life, formed in 
youth, and continuing to my present age, are in opposi- 
tion to the charge now brought against me, and in an 
hour such as this, I trust the value of a good character 
will be appreciated by you. I have been sustained on 
every hand, even by the evidence produced by tlie prose- 
cution, and Pratt, who in this proceeding seeks to shift 
the result of his own incapacity upon me, is left alone 
and unsupported in his charge, contradicted in ever}^ 
essential paiticular by every witness that has been 
examined in the case. Therefore, in great confidence, 
knowing my innocence of all fault, I surrender my case 
into the hands of this honorable court, feeling assured 
that the truth has been made manifest, and tliat its 
decision will leave me free from taint, and nntariiished in 
my character and honor. 

Thanking you for the patience exhibited in my case, 
and the kindness extended to my connsel and myself, I 
now resign my case into your hands. 

I am, Mr. President and gentlemen of the court, 

Most respectfully, 

R. W. MEADE, 

Captain. 






lEFe '13 



DEFEjSTSE 



CAPT, HfCflARD W. MEADE, 



TRIED FOR THR LOSa OP THE 



UNITED STATES STEAMER SAN JACINTO, 

ON THE BAHAMA BANKS, JANUARY 1, 1865. 



READ BY Hia COrN9EL. 



JOHN W. ASHMExlD, 

0>r THE Eighth Day op Febrctart, 186(5. 



BEPORE A 



CONVENED AT THE NAVY YARD, 



Df THE C ITT OF PHILADELPHIA. 



NEW YOEK: 

P R E S 3 OF W T N K P * H A L L E N' B E C K 

113 FCXTOS iStreet. 

1 «r,f'. 



X 



LBFe'13 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




